Chennai Court April 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.G. Krishnamurthy ((Since Dead) by His L.Rs Vasanthamma, Badrinath an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ785
ORDERV. Kanakaraj, J.1. These two revisions are filed against the order dated 28.08.1996 in R.C.A. No. 3 of 1993 and 2 of 1993 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri), against the orders passed in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1990 and 9 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Hosur).2. The averments in R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1990 are that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-; that the respondent having received the rent promptly up to July 1998, issued receipts therefor; that thereafter, the respondent did not receive the rent at all; that he did not issue receipt for the payments made for three months; that the respondent did not respond to the petitioner's request to name the bank in which he could deposit the rent; that the petitioner had paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance; that on 18.4.1990, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner sent a reply on 16.5.1990...
K.M. Kannu Gounder Vs. Mahboob Ali Sahib and Amanullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad362; (2003)2MLJ329
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 22.02.1996 made in E.P. No. 34 of 1993 in O.S. No. 164 of 1992 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, thereby dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner herein who is the decree-holder, without costs. 2. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that the petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 164 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, and the same was decreed exparte as prayed for on 16.6.1993, against which, on the part of the respondents, no steps have been initiated to set aside the decree, as a result of which, ultimately, the decree holder, the petitioner herein, has filed the above execution petition with averments that the respondents have house and landed properties worth Rs. 1 lakh and that by means of business, they are having an income of Rs. 60,000/= per annum and further that they are having...
Sholay.Com Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Jayesh Patel Vs. Regional D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas114(Mad); 2003(3)CTC101; (2003)3MLJ63; [2004]52SCL460(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition, challenging the order of the first respondent, the Regional Director, Southern Region, Chennai dated 20.12.2000 arises under the following circumstances: '(1)M/s.Sippy Films Private Limited, the second respondent company is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. The main object of the second respondent company is to make, distribute and deal in movies apart from others which are identical. The second respondent company produced a Hindi movie titled as 'Sholay'. That was released on 15.08.1975. According to the second respondent, though it had produced some of the most memorable movies in Indian Cinema like 'Shaan, Brahmachari, Andaz, Saagar' etc., and even a famous television serial by name 'Buniyaad', the film 'Sholay' is a major blockbuster motion picture, which was turned to become one of the most successful and renowned Indian films ever. It earns the international name not only in cine field but also other fields like trades. The name 'Shol...
N.L.C. Contractors' Sangam, Rep. by Its General Secretary, K. Rajdnera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ484
C. Nagappan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.12.2002 rendered in W.P. No. 39982 of 2002. 2. The appellant is an Association namely Neyveli Lignite Corporation Contractors' Sangam, represented by its General Secretary, while the first respondent is the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the respondents 2 to 4 are its administrators and the respondents 5 to 8 are the successful tenderers.3. The matter relates to the tender works notified by the first respondent i.e. Neyveli Lignite Corporation in respect of Annual Maintenance Contract. The contracts are of two types, 'A' Schedule, which is inclusive of the materials and issued for open participation to all the contractors and without rate fixation, and 'B' Schedule, which is a labour contract for which payments are made on unit basis without supply of materials. Complaint is with regard to Clause 16 of the Notification relating to 'B' Schedule, which reads as follows:'16. Cases of Equal ...
Thamburaja and Seetharaman Vs. Kanakasabai Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ697
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 31.3.1989 rendered in A.S.No.115 of 1985 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1984 rendered in O.S.No.1359 of 1980 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs who lost their case before both the Courts below.3. Tracing the history of the case what comes to be known is that the appellants herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.1359 of 1980 on the file the Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore for declaration and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the owners of Survey No.151/2 on the West in which the plaintiffs have installed an electric motor with service connection No.7; that on the East of Survey number there is a kuttai poramboke in S.No.148; that there is no water i...
The Management of Mettur Beardsell Ltd., Presently Known as Beardsell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ811Mad; (2004)3MLJ385
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. While W.A. No.761 of 1992 is filed against the order dated 22.7.1991 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.11956 of 1987, W.A. No.760 of 1997 has been filed against the order dated 24.2.1997 passed by another learned single Judge in W.P. No.1063 of 1988. The Contempt Appeal is filed against the order dated 11.12.1992 passed in Contempt Application No.366 of 1992 arising out of the non-compliance of the order dated 22.7.1991 passed in W.P. No.11956 of 1987.2. W.A. Nos.761 of 1992 and 760 of 1997 The applicability or otherwise of Section 25-FF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is the question for consideration in these two Writ Appeals. In fact, the result in W.A. No.760 of 1997 depends upon the adjudication in W.A. No.761 of 1992 as the subject matter is one and the same and so also the parties. The only difference is that while the order in W.A. No.761 of 1992 is directed against I.D. No.8 of 1984 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, the ord...
Ramaswamy Naidu Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: 2003LC397(Madras); 2003(157)ELT636(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 8-8-2000 made in the stay application pending appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Stay Order No. 672 of 2000.2. The point to be resolved before the Tribunal is that whether there is violation under Rule 57R(8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which make the petitioner liable for penalty under Rule 57U(6).3. The brief fact is that in respect of capital goods imported by the petitioner, during November, 1995, the petitioner originally filed the returns under the provisions of the Income-tax Act claiming depreciation. In the original return filed for the year 1996-97, the petitioner claimed depreciation in respect of the imported capital goods for relevant financial year ended 31-3-1996. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revised return on 26-6-1998, wherein the claim of depreciation has been withdrawn. In the meanwhile, the petitioner claimed Modvat credit during April, 1996 to...
Tushaar Mehta Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)550
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent, dt. 22nd Oct., 2002, rejecting the application of the petitioner for waiver of interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act.2. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 while considering the petitioner'sapplication after recounting the facts, has rejected the application by observingas follows:'.....In the assessee's petition dt. 19th Aug., 2000 as well as in the written submission filed on 21st Aug., 2002 no reasons have been submitted/for the belated filing of the return of income for the asst. yr. 1996-97. Hence, the interest charged under Section 234A is confirmed.Further, in view of the facts cited above, I am unable to accept the assessee's explanation that he could not anticipate the assessment of the capital gains as made in the assessment order for 1996-97, since the conditions laid down in Board's Instructions in F. No. 400/234/95-IT, dt. 23rd May, 199...
Mariappan, Son of Perumal and anr. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC540
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellants, two in number, who in the judgment will be referred to as 'A.1' and 'A.2', for the sake of convenience, were tried along with another by name Immanuel, who was arrayed as A.3 before the learned Sessions Judge. The allegation against A.1, A.2 and A.3 is that at 11.30 p.m. on 14.5.1997, the accused, in furtherance of the common intention of each other, caused the death of the deceased, Ganapathy, son of Manickam, by A.1 cutting him on the neck and A.2 also cutting him on the back of neck and A.3 stabbing him on the stomach and on account of the said cut injuries suffered by the deceased, Ganapathy, his head was severed and he died. To prove the above allegation, the prosecution, before the trial Court, examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 as well as M.Os. 1 to 8. The learned trial Judge, while accepting the prosecution version as against A.1 and A.2 and convicting them under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC., acquitted A.3 on the ground tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Das Wines and Liquors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2003
Reported in: [2004]267ITR74(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal accepted the explanations by the assessee and quashed the penalties which were inflicted by the assessing authority and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and the following substantial questions of law are canvassed.'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) by holding that the habitual default caused by the assessee has no relevance and would not constitute wilful default ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the criminal court's finding that the assessee is guilty of wilful default and hence punishable under the Income-tax Act has no relevance to the subject matter of appeal be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »